Brumfield
Brumfield v. Astrue
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Cathrine Brumfield appeals the district court’s decision affirming an agency decision that Brumfield was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and therefore was not eligible for benefits. We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.2004). We may set aside a denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir.2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A decision will not be reversed for errors that are harmless. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir.2005).
The ALJ in this case did not err in rejecting the portions of Brumfield’s testimony that were inconsistent with other evidence in the record. In order for the ALJ to reject a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms, he must offer “specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1036 (citing Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir.1996)); see Morgan v. Apfel, 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir.1999).